>
> I have a JSON compatible date parser which converts a stringified
> version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM]) into a
> JavaScript native Date object format...

Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO standard, if we have to include
dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you have, then
how would I specify the time zone? Or is it assumed to be UTC?

I will offer it to the JSON community to be included as a component of

> the json.js library -- provided under the JSON License (Doug's "Good
> NOT Evil" license)...
>
> Speaking of the "Good NOT Evil" license -- is anyone interested in
> formalizing that ? like the myriad licensing already available -- GPL,
> or LGPL, or BSD Licenses... we could call it the "GNOTE" license....

No, no, no! There are already dozens and dozens of open source licenses.
There is absolutely no good reason to invent another one. Do you have any
idea how much legal crap creating a new license creates for any company or
other organisation that actually wants to use the associated software? If
you want to formalise the license, please, please pick one of these:

... Maybe I m missing something, but why wouldn t one simply use the standard unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which people seem to largely ignore on

Message 2 of 18
, May 26, 2006

0 Attachment

On 26 May, 2006, at 12:31, Martin Cooper wrote:

> On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a JSON compatible date parser which converts a stringified
> > version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM]) into a
> > JavaScript native Date object format...
>
> Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO standard, if we have to
> include
> dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you
> have, then
> how would I specify the time zone? Or is it assumed to be UTC?

Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't one simply use the
standard
unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which people seem to largely
ignore
on the internet), and is likely supported already by most languages, JS
included.
In addition it can easily be sent around as a simple int.

-Christopher

Dave Balmer

Greg, I ve given this a bit of thought too, but in the end this would only complicate matters exponentially. Making a simple data parser is one thing, but

Message 3 of 18
, May 26, 2006

0 Attachment

Greg,

I've given this a bit of thought too, but in the end this would only
complicate matters exponentially. Making a simple data parser is one
thing, but adding in a language parser (much less many language
parsers) on top of that just isn't practical.

Taking this "next logical step" would in fact narrow JSON's use as a
lightweight data exchange format, and limit adoption.

There's nothing which says you can't rig something (there are several
applications which abuse CDATA in XML to introduce in-line code, for
example), but I see no value in adding it to the specs.

Dave

On May 26, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Greg Patnude wrote:

> I think everyone is missing teh point I am trying to make --- I truly
> believe that "Object Notation" is the holy grail of data interchange.
> As a result, I would like to see object notation extended beyond just
> support for JavaScript (JSON) to every language --
>
> If we are truly talking about Object Notation -- then the parser(s)
> need to support all of the native object types for any given
> programming language -- If we are only talking about JavaScript
> Object Notation -- then I would expect the parser(s) to support all
> of the object / data types native to JavaScript.
>
> So -- if JSON is to TRULY represent the JavaScript Objects -- in
> addition to String, Number, Array, Object, true, false, and null
> objects -- the parser should also necessarily include
>
> • Date
> • Math
> • Function
> • RegExp
> and
> • Boolean objects...
>
> My desire is to see object notation become mainstream -- much more
> than JSON and bigger than XML even -- In order to accomplish that --
> we would really need an object notation parser for every language
> that is to be supported -- the purpose of the parser(s) would be to
> convert the object notation format to and from native language
> objects (NLO's) and variable data types...
>
> So, in a JavaScript implementation -- the parser would support all of
> the JavaScript core data types: OBject, Array, Function, String,
> Date, Number, etc...
>
> In a VBScript implementation: the parser would support Variant,
> String, Number, Array, etc...
>
> You get the idea -- basically -- I am proposing a "type-mapping"
> mechanism and wrappers that support a language independent
> implementation of object-notation
>
>
> --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Lindsay <lindsay@...> wrote:
> >
> > Fang Yidong wrote:
> > > I think why JSON be successful as a data-interchange
> > > format is its simplicity and neutral nature for many
> > > languages. Adding function definition just make JSON
> > > stick to javascript. As to the datatype 'Date',you can
> > > use number or string to represent it.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. Maybe define a std date format, there's a ISO one which
> would do
> > fine.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lindsay
> >
>
>

---
"Mean people suck." -- unknown

Greg Patnude

It is originally based on converting a date-time string from an ANSI SQL database into a JavaScript UTC time... The ANSI SQL datetime (timestamp) appeared to

Message 4 of 18
, May 26, 2006

0 Attachment

It is originally based on converting a date-time string from an ANSI
SQL database into a JavaScript UTC time... The ANSI SQL datetime
(timestamp) appeared to be "closest to" the JavaScript Date()
constructor at the time I developed the library --

var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");

Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the UI come from the
RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the time....

RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix... many people
appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally -- if it were
100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be a happy camper...
but... we gotta provide support for the greatest common
denominator... not the lowest common denominator...

> > include
> > dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you
> > have, then
> > how would I specify the time zone? Or is it assumed to be UTC?
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't one simply use the
> standard
> unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which people seem to

largely

> ignore
> on the internet), and is likely supported already by most

languages, JS

> included.
> In addition it can easily be sent around as a simple int.
>
> -Christopher
>

Fang Yidong

It s not necessary to add Date SPEC to JSON to make things work. JSON just give you the freedom to do whatever you want. I ve used JSON.simple to exchange

Message 5 of 18
, May 26, 2006

0 Attachment

It's not necessary to add Date SPEC to JSON to make
things work. JSON just give you the freedom to do
whatever you want.

I've used JSON.simple to exchange millions of records
contains date and time fields from Oracle to
Postgres,it works very well and just 2 or 3 lines
added to convert the date and time format between
Oracle and Postgres,without the Date SPEC.

So I think the core primitive datetype
String,True,False,Number and Null of JSON is enough.

> It is originally based on converting a date-time
> string from an ANSI
> SQL database into a JavaScript UTC time... The ANSI
> SQL datetime
> (timestamp) appeared to be "closest to" the
> JavaScript Date()
> constructor at the time I developed the library --
>
> var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");
>
>
> Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the
> UI come from the
> RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the
> time....
>
> RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix...
> many people
> appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally
> -- if it were
> 100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be
> a happy camper...
> but... we gotta provide support for the greatest
> common
> denominator... not the lowest common denominator...
>
>
>
> --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Stumm
> <christopher@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 26 May, 2006, at 12:31, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have a JSON compatible date parser which
> converts a
> stringified
> > > > version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy
> hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM])
> into a
> > > > JavaScript native Date object format...
> > >
> > > Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO
> standard, if we
> have to
> > > include
> > > dates in JSON? And if the above format actually
> defines what you
> > > have, then
> > > how would I specify the time zone? Or is it
> assumed to be UTC?
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't one
> simply use the
> > standard
> > unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which
> people seem to
> largely
> > ignore
> > on the internet), and is likely supported already
> by most
> languages, JS
> > included.
> > In addition it can easily be sent around as a
> simple int.
> >
> > -Christopher
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home
> page now.
>

... Agreed. I d like to see a std for dates as they are very commonly used and nearly count as a scalar type :) But stick to the KISS principle. Feature bloat

Message 6 of 18
, May 28, 2006

0 Attachment

Dave Balmer wrote:

> Greg,
>
> I've given this a bit of thought too, but in the end this would only
> complicate matters exponentially. Making a simple data parser is one
> thing, but adding in a language parser (much less many language
> parsers) on top of that just isn't practical.
>

Agreed. I'd like to see a std for dates as they are very commonly used
and nearly count as a scalar type :) But stick to the KISS principle.
Feature bloat his killed a lot of stds.

--
Lindsay

Kevin Smith

... I completely agree. We were unable to use the GNOTE-licensed code in either our GPL application, or in our other app that s currently closed-source.

>
> On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of the "Good NOT Evil" license -- is anyone interested in
> > formalizing that ? like the myriad licensing already available --
> > GPL, or LGPL, or BSD Licenses... we could call it the "GNOTE"
> > license....
>
>
> No, no, no! There are already dozens and dozens of open source
> licenses. There is absolutely no good reason to invent another one.
> Do you have any idea how much legal crap creating a new license
> creates for any company or other organisation that actually wants
> to use the associated software?

I completely agree. We were unable to use the GNOTE-licensed code in
either our GPL application, or in our other app that's currently
closed-source. Fortunately, we found a json implementation under a
simpler license, so we didn't have to re-invent it from scratch.

Personally, my big problem with the GNOTE license is: WHO decides what
is evil? Some folks thing gays are evil, while others think that
anti-gay behavior is evil. Some folks think Bin Laden is evil, but
I'm pretty sure he thinks his enemies are the evil ones. Worse...what
is "evil" can change over time, so I might be allowed to use the
software today, but next year my use might be considered evil by the
license holder.

It's a great idea, but just doesn't work in practice. Basically, it
will either discourage people from using the software, or will
encourage people to ignore or violate the license, whether
intentionally, or due to a disagreement over what is evil. Pretty much
anyone who takes licenses seriously will not be able to use GNOTE
software.

> I'd suggest the Apache License 2.0, which pretty much says you can
> do whatever you want with the software as long as you keep the
> original license in place.

Except that Apache License 2.0 code (arguably) can't be linked with
GPL software, which is unfortunate. For widest compatibility with
other licenses, I prefer the MIT-style license, which is even more
liberal. The LGPL also tends to work well with proprietary and Free
software.

Kevin

Michal Migurski

... Except for time zones. ... As another poster commented, unix epoch is a great transmission format thanks to its explicit treatment of time zones. Every

Message 8 of 18
, Jun 3, 2006

0 Attachment

> var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");
>
>
> Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the UI come from the
> RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the time....

Except for time zones.

> RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix... many people
> appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally -- if it were
> 100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be a happy camper...
> but... we gotta provide support for the greatest common
> denominator... not the lowest common denominator...

As another poster commented, unix epoch is a great transmission
format thanks to its explicit treatment of time zones. Every language
I deal with in my work uses it (PHP, Python, ECMA-, Action-, and
JavaScript in milliseconds), and I find it vastly preferable when
moving data between web servers, DB servers, and client browsers that
are in unknown locations. The Atom spec does something similar, by
requiring dates to be expressed in UTC.

I'm generally opposed to the inclusion of dates and functions into
javascript, though. Python has four ways to describe dates, and PHP
limits what can be done with functions as data. No sense in taking a
simple, beautiful spec and complicating it just to satisfy a few edge
cases.

> I'd suggest the Apache License 2.0, which pretty much says you can
> > do whatever you want with the software as long as you keep the
> > original license in place.
>
> Except that Apache License 2.0 code (arguably) can't be linked with
> GPL software, which is unfortunate.

No, that's not the case (and there is no "arguably" ;), at least from an ASF
perspective.

There is a policy in place at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) that
states that ASF projects cannot have required dependencies on, or bundle,
libraries licensed under the GPL or certain other licenses. What that means
is that whenever you download ASF software, you can be absolutely sure that
there are no "tricks up our sleeve" and you do not suddenly find yourself
using additional software, with incompatible licenses, that you may not have
expected.

That is _completely_ different from what you, as a user of ASF software,
choose to do with it. If you want to build an application that includes ASF
and GPL software, that is absolutely fine with the ASF.

For widest compatibility with

> other licenses, I prefer the MIT-style license, which is even more
> liberal. The LGPL also tends to work well with proprietary and Free
> software.

I'd agree that the MIT license is very flexible, but I'd suggest caution
with the LGPL in a business environment. But this is getting way off-topic
for this list...

--
Martin Cooper

Kevin

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.